SATA vs SCSI
in [Storage]
|
Prev: Strange Screws
Next: BIOS sees 6GB; Linux sees 250GB
From: Rob Nicholson on 20 Jan 2006 06:50 I know, that old chestnut :-) We're currently running a five year old Dell PowerEdge 4400 server with 5 x 70GB Hitachi Ultra 160 SCSI drives in RAID-5 giving us ~280GB disk space. This server hosts our file share, SQL 7 and Exchange 5.5 services. But the time has come to plan for the future and upgrade where appropriate. We're looking at switching to Windows 2003 and buying another server to host SQL Server and Exchange. We're at about 40 users at the moment but have plans to grow to 100+ Simple question, complex answer I guess: is it still best to stick with SCSI or consider SATA? I've read some positive reviews of the SATA Raptor versus SCSI systems. Cost isn't really the biggest issue - mainly want the best technology for the next five years. Yeah, I know - impossible task :-) Thanks, Rob.
From: Arno Wagner on 20 Jan 2006 07:55 Previously Rob Nicholson <rob.nicholson(a)nospam_informed-direct.com> wrote: > I know, that old chestnut :-) We're currently running a five year old Dell > PowerEdge 4400 server with 5 x 70GB Hitachi Ultra 160 SCSI drives in RAID-5 > giving us ~280GB disk space. This server hosts our file share, SQL 7 and > Exchange 5.5 services. > But the time has come to plan for the future and upgrade where appropriate. > We're looking at switching to Windows 2003 and buying another server to host > SQL Server and Exchange. We're at about 40 users at the moment but have > plans to grow to 100+ > Simple question, complex answer I guess: is it still best to stick with SCSI > or consider SATA? Stay SCSI. SATA may look the same in some benchmarks, but the fact of it is that SATA is a cheap, mass-market product, while SCSI is a professional product. It is designed with a different mind-set. True, SCSI also fails sometimes. Also true SCSI may not be that much faster today. But overall you get something different when profit margins per unit are significanrt and manufacturer care to have their products viewed as reliable by people that are willing to pay a lot. > I've read some positive reviews of the SATA Raptor versus > SCSI systems. Of course. WD does not have SCSI products and so has to make everybody believe that SATA is just as good. It is not. And frankly I would be concertned with the reliability (or better lack of) WD disks. > Cost isn't really the biggest issue - mainly want the best > technology for the next five years. Yeah, I know - impossible > task :-) Best technology: SCSI, without doubt. These are expected to run 24/7 for years. Cheapest technology: SATA. And if you do not buy WD, but Samsung, Seagate, or maybe new Hitachi, most of the disks may even be alive in 5 years. Arno
From: Rob Nicholson on 20 Jan 2006 08:12 > Of course. WD does not have SCSI products and so has to make > everybody believe that SATA is just as good. It is not. And > frankly I would be concertned with the reliability (or better > lack of) WD disks. True - we've had a couple of large WD fail with the click-of-death. > Best technology: SCSI, without doubt. These are expected to > run 24/7 for years. I suspected as much but thought I'd ask. Cheers, Rob.
From: Rob Nicholson on 20 Jan 2006 08:10 > Best technology: SCSI, without doubt. These are expected to > run 24/7 for years. Also, one of the things that prompted me to look was that I was checking our NAS and SANs and wandered into the Dell NAS offering which was SATA. That's what got me thinking. Cheers, Rob.
From: chrisv on 20 Jan 2006 09:00
Rita ? Berkowitz wrote: >As a general rule, everyone should ignore"Rita" the SCSI troll. |